ASPIRING LEADERS’ PERSPECTIVES 1 Measuring Change as a Result of Program Pedagogy: An Exploration of Aspiring Leaders' Perspectives

National attention on effective schools has focused on the issue of the quality of leadership preparation programs (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). The need for more and better-prepared principals (Hale & Moorman, 2003) raises the question of how to measure the impact of program preparation on the perspectives of aspiring leaders. While other research may rely on self-reports of perception, this qualitative study explores changes in leader identity and problem-framing through analysis of principalship program student problem-based narratives. In an earlier phase of this study, we developed continua to describe leader identity and problem-framing. Through this process we developed five leader identity categories. Three of these categories reflect leader-centric identities: leader-in-solitude, leader-dictated, and leaderdriven identity. Two of the categories represent participative-centric leader identity: collaborative leader and transformative leader identity. We also created a continuum to locate participant’s problem-framing as first-order change: student and family, teacher and classroom, administrator and campus, or second-order change: capacity building and culture frames. Comparison of pre-program and end-of-program data analysis support the majority of participants included in this study exhibited movement toward participativecentric leader identity and second order change problem-framing by the end of the twoyear principal preparation program. The full paper can be accessed at www.utprincipalship.org, under research. No part of this paper may be cited without written permission from the lead author. ASPIRING LEADERS’ PERSPECTIVES 2 Measuring Change as a Result of Program Pedagogy: An Exploration of Aspiring Leaders' Perspectives The discussion regarding the quality and effectiveness of campus leadership has sparked a far-reaching range of research and inquiry. While the centrality of leadership to impact school effectiveness has been documented (Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008) the complexity of the interplay of factors contributing to leadership influence continues to be explored (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). Research indicates that effective campus leaders are adept at a wide range of skills including the ability to develop positive relationships with an array of stakeholders, foster professional learning communities, inspire the commitment to a shared vision of educational equity and excellence, guide instructional improvement and reform efforts, and implement structures and systems to support these efforts (Engels, Hotton, Devos, Bouckenooghe, & Aelterman, 2008; Harris, 2007; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). Questions regarding the preparation of aspiring leaders in light of this emerging body of knowledge thus arise. Given the extraordinary challenges that confront contemporary campus leaders, equipping aspiring leaders with the skills and content knowledge required to meet these challenges is a daunting task. Recent research of innovative preparation programs suggests a range of promising pedagogical practices geared to address this challenge (Brown, 2004b; DarlingHammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007). Evaluating and measuring the impact of the curriculum and instruction of these program components is vital in the task to contribute to the body of knowledge examining preparation program effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to describe the second stage of a multi-phase research project designed to determine the impact, if any, of a purposefully designed preparation program on the perceptions of program participants. We frame this research through the theoretical and practical underpinnings of effective leadership preparation programs, leadership identity and problem-framing as explored in the literature. Effective Program Components and Pedagogy The components and pedagogical approaches of effective leadership preparation stem from the literature analyzing effective leadership practices (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr. & Cohen, 2007). The literature suggests that campus leaders who exemplify and embrace notions of social justice, bridge theory and practice through critical reflection, and embody qualities of servant leadership are more likely to guide a campus to substantive change (Brooks, Jean-Marie, Normore, & Hodgins, 2007; Gooden, 2002; Jacobson, Brooks, Giles, Johnson, & Ylimaki, 2007; Theoharis, 2009). Additionally, research indicates that leaders who implement improvement strategies geared toward the cultivation of a learning organization and professional community are more likely to realize campus-wide reform and improvement efforts (Leithwood & Duke, 1998; Leithwood, et al., 2008; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002). Research indicates that leaders who act from beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions anchored in values of social justice and who initiate capacity building strategies that emphasize relationships, collaboration, and shared decision-making are more effective in achieving transformational reforms that lead to more equitable and just school conditions for all students (Brown, 2004a; Jacobson, et al., 2007; Marks & Printy, 2003; Theoharis, 2008). ASPIRING LEADERS’ PERSPECTIVES 3 Innovative educational leadership preparation programs are revamping course content and instructional delivery to account for these findings (Brown, 2004b; DarlingHammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr. M. T., et al., 2007; Orr, 2006a). Taking into account theories relative to adult learning (Brown, 2004b; Orr, 2006a) educational administration scholars and professors are revamping program designs to include such elements as the cohort model, problem-based learning, internships, rigorous recruitment and selection, and critical reflection and discourse (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, et al., 2007; Orr, 2006a). Exemplary programs embrace adult learning styles by emphasizing self-directed, collaborative, and authentic learning experiences which foster the development of personal and professional beliefs and attitudes as well as promote flexibility in problem-solving. These efforts are geared toward cultivating the aspiring administrators’ leadership identity and problem-framing. The conceptual notion that beliefs mediate action and are a critical element of identity (Bandura, 2001; Brown, 2004a) suggests that the development of leadership identity is vital to fostering campus leaders who are prepared to meet the complexities of the school setting. Bandura (2001) notes, “People are not only agents of action. They are also self-examiners of their own functioning,” (p. 165). Beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions are key elements to agency and identity which can be influenced through critical self-reflection and interaction (Bandura, 2001). Contemporary research suggests that campus leaders who are most effective at critically addressing educational inequities exhibit commonalities in terms of leadership identity (Brown, 2004a; Gooden, 2002; Theoharis, 2009). Theoharis (2008) notes that leaders committed to social justice share a common set of “beliefs” and “dispositions” which are “central to [the] principal’s work and identities as school leaders,” (p. 19). Moreover, Theoharis indicates that these principals maintain a “strong belief in empowering and trusting teachers,” (p. 19). The literature informing our current research study builds on the notion that beliefs, dispositions, and attitudes are key to the development of leadership identity. Learning experiences which challenge pre-service leaders to examine their assumptions through reflective practices and critical discourse are a key element of current innovative programs which strive to foster this critical consciousness (Brown, 2005; Orr, 2006b). As Brown (2005) advocates for a transformative pedagogy: Pre-service leaders can then be challenged to explore these constructs from numerous, diverse, changing perspectives. Personal biases and the preconceived notions they hold about people who are different from themselves by race, ethnicity, culture, gender, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, and physical and mental abilities can be identified and discussed. As such, these courses require an active, sustained engagement in the subject matter and an openness of mind and heart. Aspiring leaders need time and structure to think, reflect, assess, decide, and possibly move from their current perspectives or status to another level of commitment and action, (p. 159) Through the experiences of collaborative critical inquiry, self-reflection, and authentic learning experiences, emerging school leaders expand their worldview and cultivate more sophisticated dispositions and identities (Brown, 2005; Byrne-Jimenez & Orr, 2007). Beliefs and attitudes regarding authority and power resonate in the literature relative to effective school leadership (Brooks, et al., 2007; Brown, 2005; DarlingASPIRING LEADERS’ PERSPECTIVES 4 Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008) and are inherent in the concept of leadership identity (Theoharis, 2008). For effective leaders, the locus of control is distributed (Brooks, et al., 2007). As noted by Theoharis (2008), principals committed to the tenets of social justice exhibit identities that foster school environments that are “distinct from schools where the principal is autocratic and imposes decisions in a top-down manner,” (p. 19). Cultivating a collaborative and transformative leadership identity through authentic learning experiences and reflective discourse is a key component of exemplary leadership preparation programs (Brown, 2005; Cowie & Crawford, 2007; Orr, 2006b). Research findings examining the development of graduate students’ leadership identity further informs our current research by providing a conceptual framework. Komives and her colleagues argue that “Understanding the process of creating a leadership identity is central to designing leadership programs and teaching leadership,” (Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen, 2005, p. 594). They explain that as leadership identity develops, the perception of leadership as “leader-centric” evolves to a view of leadership as “a collaborative, relational process” (Komives, et al., 2005, p. 610). Importantly, the spectrum of leadership identity is not fixed (Komives, et al, 2005); rather individuals can move between stages in both linear and cyclical patterns. “Even as development through the stages occurs, development proceeds in a circular manner. A helix model of development allows for stages to be repeatedly experienced, and each return is experienced with a deeper and more complex understanding” (Komives, Longerbeam, Owen, Mainella, & Osteen, 2006, p. 404). Coupled with the development of leadership identity is the effort to cultivate preservice leaders’ ability to frame the systemic and structure issues that lead to educational inequities, understood here as problem-framing. The literature indicates that effective leaders strive to foster a culture of collaboration geared toward transformational problemsolving (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). How a leader perceives the issues leading to inequities is key to successful school reform efforts. Leadership practices and behaviors which focus on implementing strategies to fix the problem student and his/her family are based in a deficit model which undermines authentic school reform (Brown, 2005; Gooden, 2002). Likewise, leadership practices that spur instructional and structural change through transactional agreements of reward and punishment fall short of reaching the goal of continuous school improvement and reform for all students (Hallinger, 2003b; Marks & Printy, 2003). Leadership behaviors that target curricular issues and instructional delivery methods alone are first order change efforts (Hallinger, 2003b) and reflect a first order problem-framing perspective. Second order change efforts seek to influence instructional conditions through collaborative learning and problem solving. Leaders that perceive the organic and dynamic essence of the organization engage in practices that cultivate a collaborative campus culture by fostering the norms of a professional learning community and building the capacity of all stakeholders (Leithwood, et al., 2008; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). In contrasting the first order to second order leadership practices, Hallinger suggests that “transformational leadership creates a climate in which teachers engage in continuous learning and in which they routinely share their learning with others, “ (Hallinger, 2003b, p. 338). Leaders who frame issues as second order change promote the collective capacity of the organization to problem solve and thus address issues underlying campus ASPIRING LEADERS’ PERSPECTIVES 5 culture (Hallinger, 2003b; Ingram, Seashore, & Schroeder, 2004; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Second order change leadership practices target the conditions that influence capacity building and school culture and thus indirectly affect student, family, and classroom conditions. The literature indicates that effective leadership preparation programs provide learning opportunities for pre-service leaders to exercise flexibility in problem-framing through a collaborative, reflective, and critical examination of authentic problems (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007). UTAPP Leadership Model The University of Texas at Austin Principalship Program (UTAPP) has several components in common with exemplary school leadership preparation programs (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr. M. T., et al., 2007): rigorous selection, cohort structure, problem-based learning strategies, field-based internships and coaching. The rigorous UTAPP selection process requires demonstration of prior leadership contributions at the campus and/or district level through submission of a portfolio that includes a résume, leadership artifacts, written problem-based response, statement of purpose and reference letters. These portfolio items are analyzed to determine which candidates will be selected to receive a site visit. During the site visit, a team composed of at least one university faculty member and a current graduate student interview the candidate and conduct an observation of the candidate teaching or facilitating a leadership meeting. Final recommendations for graduate school admission are based on a compilation of GPA, GRE quantitative and verbal score, portfolio score and site visit results. Once selected for the UTAPP program, graduate students experience a two-year leadership preparation program delivered through a cohort model. Class members begin to bond as a cohort before classes begin during Transition Camp. The Friday evening and all-day Saturday Transition Camp activities have been deliberately devised to foster collaboration among members. Summer coursework begins with a problem-based course, Foundations of Educational Administration (FEA). During FEA, students collaboratively conduct a study of an area school. This summer-long assignment has been intentionally designed to require cohort members to work interdependently toward a common goal, thus experiencing firsthand the special issues that arise from serving as a leader among leaders. As the two-year program continues, students complete additional coursework in the areas of instructional leadership; school law; data-based decision making; school business; class, race, and gender; and special populations including English speakers of other languages and special education. The final two semesters, students enroll in a yearlong field-based internship course with an accompanying reflective seminar. During the internship, students are supported by an onsite supervisor, an off-site coach and a UTAPP advisor. While leader identity and problem-framing are not addressed in specified coursework, throughout the program, through the use of case studies, readings, and class discussions, students examine researched practices that include collaborative systems, descriptions of transformative leadership and an emphasis on capacity building and culture associated with second order change. The findings from this research will be used to assess the efficacy of the current UTAPP pedagogy to impact the perspectives of ASPIRING LEADERS’ PERSPECTIVES 6 program participants and possibly inform adjustments in both course content and delivery. Research Project This paper presents the culmination of the second phase of our overall research project examining the impact of the program on aspiring leadership. Two research questions drive the inquiry: 1. What perspectives do pre-service leadership participants bring into a principalship program? 2. What is the nature of the shift, if any, in individual perspectives as a result of purposefully designed, learning experiences delivered through a cohort model? In the first phase of the project, we addressed the first research question employing a grounded theory approach. In order to understand the initial perspectives of cohort members we analyzed participants’ written responses to a problem-based activity submitted as part of the application portfolio for admission to the program. From this research, we developed the Leadership Identity/Problem Framing template described in detail below (Young, O'Doherty, Gooden, & Goodnow, 2010) . We then applied the template to the pre-program student narratives, plotting each cohort members’ position along both continua. In this second phase of the project, we have analyzed the cohort members’ perspectives at the end of the program to determine if individuals experience a shift in leadership identity and problem-framing, and if so, to reveal the nature of the shift. We applied the Leadership Identity/Problem Framing Template to the cohort members’ written responses to a problem-based activity which mirrored the original task. Cohort members’ leadership identity and problem-framing position were plotted and compared to their original position. Data Sources. For both the pre-program and end-of-program data samples, participants received AYP, school-based state achievement data and parent, teacher and student survey responses for an unidentified school. Participants were instructed to assume the role of an incoming principal and describe the process he/she would engage in to develop goals and a campus improvement plan. While the pre-program and end-ofprogram school data sets were from different schools, both campuses had been designated Academically Unacceptable by the Texas accountability standards. A UTAPP staff member, who was not involved in the research, removed names and other identifying information from the data sources prior to beginning both the first and second phases of this research. Each student was assigned a unique identification number 001 through 016. Using the Leadership Identity/Problem Framing Template developed in the first phase of our research, we individually coded each participant’s end of program narrative using the key concepts which frame the template (Crabtree & Miller, 1999). We then plotted each participant’s leadership identity and problem framing position. Next, we compared our findings to ensure inter-rater reliability. Participants. Each of the 16 members of the 2008 UTAPP Cohort voluntarily consented to participate in the research. However, only 14 of the total 16 cohort members submitted the end of program responses within the time requirements of the research project. Therefore, two of the members’ responses were not included in this phase of the ASPIRING LEADERS’ PERSPECTIVES 7 research. In order to ensure confidentiality, demographic information on individual participants has been omitted. We have included a summary of demographics on all sixteen of the original participants below (Table 1).